Status Dogs 143 are a vehicle for enhancing status and can become an extension of their owner’s status within social groups In this culture a dog’s worth to their owner is measured by their street value (or status) Failure to successfully engage in desirable ‘street’ behaviours (for example, protection, displays of toughness and aggression) diminishes this value Consequently status dogs are required to live the same ‘code of the street’ (a set of unwritten rules that must be followed by those engaging in street culture—Anderson 2000) as their owners and are subjected to violent challenges by other youths and their dogs According to Evans et al (cited in Ortiz 2009), status dogs (through informal dog fighting—see also the chapter on Animal Fighting herein) reportedly help resolve US street/gang conflicts allowing youths to validate their masculinity while remaining on the periphery of actual interpersonal violence (Evans et al cited in Ortiz)) Accordingly, it is not unusual to find that youths are profiling dogs (looking for specific ‘status’ characteristics, such as size, strength, aggression, toughness and resilience to pain) and then breeding for these characteristics (Hughes et al 2011) Furthermore, harsh treatment by their owners is often required for the dogs to play their role When they are no longer able to perform or their value plummets they are expendable and easily replaced Using these theoretical perspectives, an explanation for the harm and abuse experienced by these dogs at the hands of their owners becomes discernible Status dogs are, arguably, one element of a ‘unified phenomenon of antisocial and violent behaviour’ (Arluke et al 1999) This is consistent with the deviance generalisation hypothesis which maintains that animal abuse—especially amongst youths—is linked extensively to human interpersonal violence (Arluke et al 1999; Ascione 1993, 2001) and criminality (Degenhardt 2005) Violence and harm towards animals may occur concurrently or separately to interpersonal violence and criminality This is evidenced in Degenhardt’s (2005) Chicago Police Department study, which identified animal abuse offenders were more likely to carry and use firearms and engage in the sale of drugs and with street gangs than nonanimal abuse offenders More specifically, in relation to status dogs, Barnes et al (2006) found that US status dog owners had significantly more criminal convictions for serious crimes (that is crimes featuring aggression/violence or firearms, or involving drugs or children) than non-status dog owners It is therefore reasonable to propose that status dog ownership, and its associated animal harms, occurs as part of a complex offending pattern exhibited by deviant youths To further the explanation of status dog ownership it is essential to ask the question—why certain dog types provide status for youths? In line with